They have zero constitutional rights abroad. You are talking about arresting them in international waters, bringing them to the US and having US taxpayers carry the costs for their lawyers, trials and incarceration. You are also talking about risking the lives of our sailors and coasties, depending on whether Navy or Coast Guard do the stops and arrests. You also risk some far left judge letting them out and preventing them from being deported.
I am unalterably opposed to this. Dead means they will never again do harm to our people.
RE: are talking about arresting them in international waters, bringing them to the US and having US taxpayers carry the costs for their lawyers, trials and incarceration. You are also talking about risking the lives of our sailors and coasties, depending on whether Navy or Coast Guard do the stops and arrests. You also risk some far left judge letting them out and preventing them from being deported.
And you want the USA to slaughter people in vessels in international waters on mere suspicion of carrying drugs without absolutely verifying that this is so. That’s where we part ways.
Killing suspects because prosecution is expensive is not law enforcement — it’s lawlessness.
Once we accept cost as a justification for killing, we lose the moral distinction between democracy and tyranny.
It invites a logic where mere suspicion could be met with lethal force.
Why can’t we use the same argument to kill ANY illegal who enter our country? Many are mules for drug cartels. Why can’t we use the same argument to kill any suspected drug dealer in the streets of Chicago to save on cost and not risk left wing judges?
And I’m not even certain of the cost/ benefit here.
I am inclined to think that Lawful interdiction is more expensive upfront, but far more sustainable and legitimate long-term.
Extrajudicial destruction may seem cheaper, but it invites massive strategic, legal, and reputational costs that compound over time.